|WikiProject International relations|
Empress Wu Zetian??
You really got to back up this claim. According to some accounts, the Panda wasn't really noticed by the Han Chinese as anything other than a cryptozoological phenomenon until the time of Marco Polo, who did take some note of an exotic fur while visiting Sichuan. But then, Marco, unlike Mateo Ricci, didn't have any intellectual correspondence with the Han Chinese. His account only existed in his European language. But even after the Yuan dynasty, the elusiveness of the creature beyond its Sichuan homeland made it impractical to transport the animal to imperial zoos. The popularization of the panda as a pet only started during the Qing dynasty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueGroup (talk • contribs) 23:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Leasing = "Panda Diplomacy"?
Does leasing pandas count as "panda diplomacy" or only when they are gifts? You'd think that leasing was more for profit, but when the latest pair of pandas was leased to the National Zoo, it have overtures of panda diplomacy. I think they came at a time when Congress was upset at China about something in the defense area and it seemed a positive note during that fray... Thoughts, anyone?
Also, Can anyone find more details on where the other pandas (the ones that were gifts) went besides the US and UK? It would also be nice to find other incidents where other countries treated pandas as symbols of an aspect of their relationship with China, like when a U.S. diplomat hugged the panda cub. Chloe Wong 06:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
There are pandas in Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City Chapultepec Zoo, so that will make 3 countries (Mexico, US and UK), I would like to know what other countries received them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
IIf this helps u the only Pandas left that were Gifts are Bao-Bao at Berlin Zoo and one of the ones In Mexico City zoo :):D- Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This article seems a bit slanted on the Taiwan segment. There are all these claims of public outcry, but no sources. --18.104.22.168 20:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Have modified the section to stick a bit closer to the facts. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- In one section the words of the ROC were changed. The article had indicated that the ROC said it was a non-domestic transfer: as the source put it, it was not correct to say that the importation of the two animals was domestic with the direct quote “Besides, [the pandas] must go through customs. Why would they need to do that if it were a domestic trade?” she said.. The words in the article were changed to "The ROC clarified that both sides treated it as a non-domestic transfer". That is misleading. The ROC didn't say it was treated as a non-domestic transfer. The ROC said it was a non-domestic transfer. At least that's what the source tells us. Actually, the article before was more precise in saying which ROC official made the statement. Readin (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the conceptual difference between "It was not correct to say it was a domestic transfer" and "It is a non-domestic transfer". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. A direct quote is not necessarily preferrable - and quite often is not - if a summary (paraphrase) can be made. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- The current wording of the article doesn't use either of your quotes. It only says that the "procedures" were those for non-domestic transfers. It attempts to hide the fact that the ROC official said it was not a domestic transfer (regardless of the procedures). Given that the entire controversy was over Taiwan would allow this transfer to imply that Taiwan is part of China, the precise wording is important. Readin (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not an "alternative" explanation
The reason given by President Chen was not an alternative explanation - it was consistent with the explanation. Also, the China Daily is a PRC newspaper. With the amount of control and censorship Chinese government exercises over China's newspapers, it cannot be considered a reliable source on the Taiwanese position. For subjects where China has a strong opinion, and Taiwan is certainly one of those subjects, a Chinese newspaper can only be considered a reliable source of the Chinese government's position. Readin (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Right. I'd like to see a full explanation of why the China Daily is not a reliable source - or any less reliable than the Taipei Times, which is well known to be a pro-Green and pro-American publication.
- The fact of the matter is, the official reason given by the relevant authorities in Taiwan was for conservation reasons, not "the pandas are not happy" as President Chen so eloquently puts it.
- I emphasise "official" and "relevant" here because: 1. A-Bian's newsletter is not an official source, and 2. the President is neither empowered nor qualified to assess a fauna import application: the assessment was done by a bureaucratic body, supposedly on an independent, technical basis. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well, Pyl would surely tell you that under Taiwanese law the president gets to make foreign policy. But he's not here.
- You may be right about the official reason, but please find a reliable source. The China Daily is, as I explained, a Chinese newspaper. On a highly sensitive topic like China's relationship with Taiwan it should be considered no better than the Chinese government in terms of reliability. Xinhuanet was recently discussed on the NPOV board and the same conclusion was reached.
- President Chen as chief executive makes the decision - and his statement shows why the decision was made. It is not as clear to me as it is to Pyl that President Chen speaks for the nation, but his words surely matter - quoting his explanation is perfectly justifiable.
- Both explanations are focussed on the welfare of the Pandas. Readin (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
China was unified in 1928 under Chiang Kai-shek. It did not include Taiwan. Prior to the KMT move to Taiwan, Mao did not consider it necessary to annex Taiwan in order to unite China under his rule - he favored independence from Japan for Taiwan. This recent idea that unifying China means annexing Taiwan is clearly POV. Suggesting that I attempt to get the article name changed shows a mistaken understanding of NPOV. An article name is supposed to reflect the term that the concept is known by - the concept people will type into search engines. Since a focus "Chinese reunification" is primarily a symptom of Chinese nationalism, the term reflects the Chinese nationalist point of view. But the article does not then say that the idea is to "reunify China" because that would be POV pushing. The article simply lists the territories that Chinese nationalists would like to see merged. "Chinese reintegration" may be the common term, but it is not the NPOV term. Using it for the article title is one thing, using it out of context in another article is another. Perhaps we could more accurately say "Qing reunification"? Readin (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
And I quote:
On 16 April 2014, China has planned to sends a pair of Pandas named Fu Wa and Feng Yi to Malaysia to mark their 40 years diplomatic ties but were postponed following the MH370 tragedy. The two Pandas was later arrived in Kuala Lumpur International Airport on 21 May 2014 and placed at the National Zoo of Malaysia (Zoo Negara).